THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WELCOME BACK. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE DAYS WE HAD A FEW LOOSE ENDS WE NEEDED TO TIE UP.

HEY, IF YOU ARE NOT ON THE PADRE BANDWAGON, YOU OUGHT TO GET ON BECAUSE LAST NIGHT WAS A GREAT BALL GAME, AND A GREAT SERIES COMING UP THIS WEEKEND.

ALL RIGHT, MR. CLARKE, I UNDERSTAND YOU’RE GOING TO CALL THE NEXT WITNESS.

MR. CLARKE: YES, THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

SEAN SORIANO.

SEAN SORIANO,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PLAINTIFF, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

THE CLERK: SIR, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: SEAN SORIANO, SPELLED S-E-A-N
S-O-R-I-A-N-O.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q GOOD MORNING, MR. SORIANO.

A GOOD MORNING.

Q WHO ARE YOU EMPLOYED BY?

A THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME LABORATORY.

Q IN WHAT PARTICULAR POSITION?

A I’M A CRIMINALIST.

Q AS PART OF YOUR ROLES AS A CRIMINALIST, DO YOU EXAMINE EVIDENCE FOR THE PRESENCE OF BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS SUCH AS BLOODSTAINS, SALIVA STAINS, AND OTHER TYPES OF FLUIDS?

A I DO.

Q COULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY, PLEASE, YOUR EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND EXPERIENCE THAT LED YOU TO YOUR CURRENT POSITION.

A AFTER OBTAINING MY BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN BIOLOGY FROM SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY, PRIOR TO BEING HIRED BY THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME LABORATORY, I HAD WORKED IN THE BIOTECH FIELD UNDER SEVERAL GENERAL TITLES, SUCH AS LABORATORY TECHNICIAN, PROCESS GROUP CHEMIST, RESEARCH TECHNICIAN, WHICH I WAS THEN SUBSEQUENTLY HIRED AS A LABORATORY TECHNICIAN FOR THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME LAB. I WAS THEN PROMOTED TO AN ASSISTANT CRIMINALIST AND THEN CRIMINALIST.

Q IN THAT ROLE, AGAIN, IN THE SEARCH THAT YOU CONDUCT FOR THE PRESENCE OF BIOLOGICAL FLUIDS, DOES THAT INCLUDE LOOKING FOR POSSIBLE BLOODSTAINS ON VARIOUS TYPES OF EVIDENCE?

A YES.

Q ARE THERE METHODS TO DO THAT?

A YES.

Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE THEM, PLEASE.

A THERE ARE METHODS SUCH AS FIRST THE VISUAL OBSERVATION, NOTING THE STAINS OF A BLOOD-LIKE APPEARANCE WHICH TENDS TO HAVE THE CHARACTERISTIC OR COLORING OF REDDISH-BROWN. THEN A CHEMICAL PRESUMPTIVE TEST IS APPLIED TO THAT STAIN.

Q THAT CHEMICAL PRESUMPTIVE TEST, WHAT DOES THE WORD PRESUMPTIVE MEAN WHEN YOU USE IT?

A BASICALLY IT INDICATES PRESENCE OF SOMETHING. IT’S NOT A CONFIRMATORY TEST.

Q DOES THAT MEAN THAT SOME THINGS OTHER THAN BLOOD CAN ACTUALLY TRIGGER THE TEST TO BE POSITIVE AS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST?

A YES.

Q DO YOU ALSO IN THE SEARCH OF ITEMS OF EVIDENCE ALSO LOOK FOR OTHER FORMS OF EVIDENCE SUCH AS HAIRS AND FIBERS?

A THAT IS PART OF OUR NORMAL EXAMINATION OF ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, CORRECT.

Q HOW DOES THAT WORK? IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN LOOKING FOR BLOODSTAINS OR IS IT THE SAME?

A BASICALLY WHEN WE OBSERVE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, MY ROLE IS TO EXAMINE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE FOR BIOLOGICAL STAINS, ANY OTHER TYPES OF EVIDENCE SUCH AS HAIRS, FIBERS, OF THAT NATURE IS PART OF OUR JOB TO NOTE THEM AND COLLECT THEM IF NECESSARY. BUT THEY’RE ALWAYS PACKAGED WITH THE ITEM DURING EXAMINATION.

Q THAT WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE THE NEXT THING I ASK YOU. WHEN YOU SEE SOMETHING THAT IS OF INTEREST TO YOU, A POSSIBLE BLOODSTAIN, A HAIR, A FIBER, AND SO ON, WHAT STEPS DO YOU TAKE TO PRESERVE THAT, JUST TALKING IN GENERAL NOW?

A OF COURSE THE DOCUMENTATION, AND THEN AFTER DOCUMENTING, THEY ARE, IF NEEDED, WILL BE PLACED IN APPROPRIATE PAPER BINDLE AND THEN LABELED APPROPRIATELY. AND DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE CASE, SOMETIMES THEY’RE NORMALLY PACKAGED WITH THE ITEM OF EVIDENCE.

Q AS OPPOSED TO WHAT?

A I’M SORRY?

Q YOU SAID NORMALLY THEY ARE PACKAGED WITH THE ITEM OF EVIDENCE. ARE THERE OTHER MEANS TO PRESERVE THEM AS WELL?

A OH, YES. YES. IF THE STAIN OR THE SUSPECTED ITEM IS — REQUIRES FURTHER TESTING, AFTER IT’S BEEN APPROPRIATELY LABELED AND PACKAGED, THEY ARE THEN PLACED INTO A FREEZER PACKET WHICH IS THEN SUBSEQUENTLY SUBMITTED TO THE PROPERTY ROOM FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS.

Q IN YOUR ROLE AS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO EXAMINES EVIDENCE FOR THE PRESENCE OF BIOLOGICAL STAINS, HAIRS, FIBERS, AND SO ON, ARE YOU THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY ANALYZES THOSE PARTICULAR ITEMS SUCH AS FOR D.N.A. OR TO DETERMINE IF FIBERS AND HAIRS ARE SIMILAR OR IS YOUR ROLE ONE OF COLLECTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF WHERE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE ARE?

A AGAIN, THE — IT’S SIMILAR TO THAT. BASICALLY MY JOB IS TO AGAIN IDENTIFY STAINS, BIOLOGICAL STAINS OF THAT NATURE. IF THERE ARE ITEMS SUCH AS HAIRS OR FIBERS, I WILL GO AHEAD AND COLLECT THEM, IDENTIFY THEM, AND NOTE THEM IN MY NOTES.

Q AND THEN SOMEONE LATER WILL ACTUALLY ANALYZE THEM AND MAKE COMPARISONS WITH KNOWN FIBERS, KNOWN HAIRS, AND SO FORTH?

A CORRECT. CORRECT.

Q ALL RIGHT.

MR. SORIANO, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU IF YOU BECAME INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THE DISAPPEARANCE OF DANIELLE VAN DAM.

A YES.

Q IN WHAT ROLE?

A MY IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR APPROACHED ME AND INFORMED ME THAT — HE ACTUALLY GAVE ME A REQUEST TO EXAMINE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.

Q JUST SO WE’RE CLEAR, WAS YOUR ROLE IN THIS CASE LIMITED TO ACTIVITIES THAT YOU PERFORMED IN THE LABORATORY OR DID YOU GO OUT TO ANY CRIME SCENES, VEHICLES, HOMES, AND SO FORTH?

A I ONLY PERFORMED EXAMINATIONS IN THE LABORATORY.

Q DID THIS CASE INVOLVE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE BROUGHT INTO THE LABORATORY?

A THERE WERE A LARGE NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT NEEDED TO BE EXAMINED.

Q WERE THERE ANY STEPS UNDERTAKEN OR ANY PROCEDURES PUT IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH THIS VOLUME OF EVIDENCE? I’M TALKING ABOUT INSIDE THE LABORATORY.

A YES. THERE WERE SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS, MEETINGS THAT INVOLVED SUPERVISING CRIMINALISTS, CRIMINALISTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE, INVESTIGATORS, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, IN TERMS OF WHAT IS OUR BEST APPROACH IN ANALYZING THESE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE AND WHICH ITEMS OF EVIDENCE NEEDED TO BE PROCESSED AND IN WHAT ORDER.

Q WERE THERE ANY STEPS TAKEN TO KEEP EVIDENCE SEPARATE FROM DIFFERENT LOCATIONS?

A YES.

Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT?

A AGAIN THERE WAS ANOTHER MEETING BETWEEN PERSONNEL RELATED TO THIS CASE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THIS CASE IN WHICH LABORATORY MEMBERS DECIDED THAT SEPARATE ROOMS WOULD BE IDENTIFIED AS ONE ITEMS BELONGING TO THE VICTIM AND ANOTHER ROOM, SEPARATE, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ROOM, ITEMS BELONGING TO THE SUSPECT.

Q HOW DID THAT PROCESS WORK, IF YOU CAN WALK US THROUGH THAT?

A INITIALLY, AGAIN, THE CASE WAS WORKED BY SEVERAL ANALYSTS, SEVERAL CRIMINALISTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE, SO AT DIFFERENT — EXCUSE ME. IN THE BEGINNING OF THE CASE DIFFERENT ANALYSTS WERE WORKING ON THE SAME CASE IN THEIR ROOMS, IN SEPARATE ROOMS. WHEN I STARTED IDENTIFYING EVIDENCE, I BEGAN TO BECOME FAMILIAR WHO WAS ACTUALLY ANALYZING THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, MEANING WHO WAS THE PERSONNEL ANALYZING THOSE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE. I THEN BEGAN COMMUNICATIONS WITH THEM TO ALLOW THEM OR TO NOTIFY THEM THAT I AM EXAMINING SUSPECT CLOTHING. AND AT NO GIVEN TIME DURING MY EXAMINATION WAS VICTIM CLOTHING EXAMINED AND SUSPECT CLOTHING EXAMINED IN THE SAME ROOM AT THE SAME TIME.

Q CAN YOU TELL US GENERALLY WHAT THE TYPES OF ITEMS WERE THAT YOU WERE EXAMINING THAT YOU’VE DESCRIBED I THINK THAT WERE BEING EXAMINED BY YOU IN A PARTICULAR LOCATION, BUT THAT OTHER ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE VICTIM WERE NOT IN THERE AT THAT TIME? IS THAT QUESTION CLEAR?

A I’M SORRY. IT’S NOT.

MR. FELDMAN: OBJECTION. VAGUE.

MR. CLARKE: SUSTAINED.

THE COURT: TRY AGAIN.
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q ALL RIGHT, MR. SORIANO, WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT YOUR EXAMINATION, I THINK YOU SAID OF SOME CLOTHING THAT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUSPECT, IS THAT CORRECT?

A CORRECT.

Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE GENERALLY WHAT THOSE ITEMS WERE AT THAT TIME?

A SEVERAL DIFFERENT CLOTHING ITEMS WERE SUBMITTED. BRIEFLY, AS A DESCRIPTION, THEY WERE A JACKET, SOME PANTS, A SWEATER, AND A TEESHIRT.

Q WERE THESE ITEMS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED TO YOU AS HAVING COME FROM A CLEANER’S?

A CORRECT.

Q AFTER THAT EXAMINATION OF THOSE ITEMS, WERE ANY DIFFERENT STEPS TAKEN AS FAR AS SEPARATION OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?

A YES.

Q DESCRIBE THAT, PLEASE.

A AGAIN, WHEN I BEGAN MY EXAMINATION OF THE CLOTHING ITEMS FROM THE DRYCLEANER’S, THEY WERE DONE IN A ROOM. AFTER THOSE, AFTER EXAMINATION OF THOSE ITEMS WERE COMPLETED, I THEN PROCESSED OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE TO THE SUSPECT IN ANOTHER ROOM. THAT BEGAN THE PROCESS OF EXAMINING ALL SUSPECT ITEMS OR EVIDENCE BELONGING TO THE SUSPECT IN THAT PARTICULAR ROOM.

Q AND DID THAT PROCEDURE OF EVEN SEPARATION OF ROOMS CONTINUE ON THROUGH THE EXAMINATIONS IN THIS CASE?

A YES, IT DID.

Q ALL RIGHT.

IF WE COULD RETURN TO THE ITEMS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED TO YOU AS HAVING COME FROM THE CLEANER’S, WHAT WAS YOUR ROLE IN EXAMINING THOSE ITEMS?

A AGAIN, MY IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR APPROACHED ME AND INFORMED ME THAT THERE WILL BE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE HERE FOR YOU TO EXAMINE. MY ROLE WAS BASICALLY TO EXAMINE THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD.

Q AND DID YOU UNDERTAKE THAT WITH REGARD TO THESE CLOTHING ITEMS?

A I DID. I DID.

Q IN PARTICULAR WERE YOU ASKED TO EXAMINE A JACKET THAT WAS LATER GIVEN AN ITEM NUMBER OF 94?

A YES.

Q WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THAT JACKET? AND LET’S TALK FIRST OF ALL ABOUT WHAT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU FIRST OBTAINED THAT JACKET.

A AGAIN THIS JACKET WAS CONTAINED IN AN EXTRA LARGE BROWN PAPER BAG SEALED ALONG WITH OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE APPARENTLY FROM THE DRYCLEANER’S. THE JACKET BRIEFLY WAS DESCRIBED — WAS GIVEN A VISUAL OBSERVATION BY ME AND DESCRIBED AS A BLUE-AND-GREEN JACKET, PREDOMINANTLY GREEN, SOME BLUE AREAS ON THE COLLAR AND IN THE BACK, AS WELL AS SOME ZIPPER AND BUTTON AREAS ON THE JACKET.

Q WHEN YOU FIRST OBTAINED THE JACKET FROM THIS LARGE PAPER BAG, DID IT HAVE ANY COVERINGS OVER IT?

A YES, IT DID.

Q WHAT?

A THE LARGE — EXCUSE ME. THE BLUE-AND-GREEN JACKET, THE GREEN JACKET ACTUALLY, WAS COVERED IN SOME PLASTIC; AND IT WAS ACCOMPANIED ALSO WITH SOME HANGERS INSIDE.

Q WERE THERE OTHER ITEMS INSIDE THIS PAPER BAG OTHER THAN THE JACKET?

A YES.

Q WHAT WERE THOSE ITEMS GENERALLY; WHAT WOULD YOU TERM THEM?

A AGAIN, THOSE WERE ITEMS GENERALLY WAS A PAIR OF PANTS, A TEESHIRT, AND A SWEATER. ALL OF THOSE WERE INDIVIDUALLY COVERED WITH SOME PLASTIC COVERS.

Q WERE THEY ON DIFFERENT HANGERS, THEN?

A YES, THEY WERE.

Q AND THEY EACH HAD THIS PLASTIC OVER THEM?

A CORRECT.

Q WHEN YOU OPENED THIS PAPER BAG, WAS THERE ANY DOCUMENTATION IN IT AS WELL?

A YES. I NOTED SOME LOOSE RECEIPTS, ONE LOOSE RECEIPT ACTUALLY, AND ONE RECEIPT THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE HANGER THAT WAS ON THE JACKET.

Q DID ANY OF THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE ANY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ON THEM?

A MAINLY THE STAINS THAT I NOTED WERE THE BLOOD-LIKE APPEARANCE WAS NOTED ON THE FRONT RIGHT MIDDLE OUTSIDE LAPEL OF THE JACKET AS WELL AS THE FRONT RIGHT OUTSIDE AREA NEAR THE SHOULDER OF THE JACKET AND AS WELL AS THE BACK OF THE NECK COLLAR OF THE JACKET ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE.

Q ALL RIGHT. WE WILL RETURN LATER TO WHERE THOSE LOCATIONS WERE.

BUT DID YOU TEST THOSE THREE AREAS TO DETERMINE IF THEY COULD BE BLOOD?

A YES, I DID.

Q HOW DID YOU DO THAT?

A WHEN I IDENTIFIED THE BLOOD-LIKE STAINS WHICH HAD THE COLORS OF THE REDDISH-BROWN AND LIGHT REDDISH-BROWN COLORING, I THEN, AFTER DOCUMENTING THEM, PERFORMED A CHEMICAL PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON THEM.

Q WITH WHAT RESULTS?

A WITH OUT OF THE FOUR STAINS THAT GAVE THE REDDISH-BROWN AND LIGHT REDDISH-BROWN STAIN APPEARANCE OR COLOR, OUT OF THE FOUR, THREE CAME OUT POSITIVE FOR THE CHEMICAL PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD.

Q ONCE THAT TEST, THAT IS, THE PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD, WAS POSITIVE, WHAT ACTIONS DID YOU TAKE?

A AFTER IDENTIFYING THOSE STAINS THAT CAME OUT CHEMICALLY PRESUMPTIVE POSITIVE FOR THE — FOR BLOOD, I THEN FOR EACH OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL STAINS I TOOK SUBSTRATE CONTROLS. THOSE ALONG WITH THE SUBSTRATE CONTROLS AND WITH THOSE INDIVIDUAL STAINS, THEY WERE ALL INDIVIDUALLY PACKAGED AND LABELED AND PLACED INTO PAPER BINDLES AND ENVELOPES. YES.

Q OKAY.

LET’S GO BACK IF WE CAN. I THINK YOU SAID THAT ONE OF THE STAINS WAS NOT POSITIVE FOR BLOOD. IS THAT RIGHT?

A THAT IS CORRECT.

Q WHERE WAS IT LOCATED?

MR. FELDMAN: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. WHEN THE WITNESS IS REFERRING TO HIS NOTES, COULD HE AT LEAST PLEASE TELL US WHAT PAGE OF HIS NOTES BECAUSE WE ARE SEQUENCED.

THE COURT: THERE ARE A LOT OF PAPERS IN THIS CASE, SO IF YOU WILL JUST REFERENCE WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT SO BOTH SIDES KNOW WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING AT. OKAY?

THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

THE WITNESS: I’M LOOKING AT PAGE 10 OF MY NOTES.

MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.

THE WITNESS: AND ON MY DIAGRAM ON THESE NOTES, THE STAIN THAT CAME OUT NEGATIVE WAS ON, CONSIDERED ON THE LEFT OUTSIDE SLEEVE OF THE JACKET.
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q DID YOU CUT OUT THAT STAIN THAT WAS NOT POSITIVE FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD?

A NO, I DID NOT.

Q THE PARTICULAR STAINS AND CONTROLS THAT YOU CUT OUT, LET’S TALK ABOUT THE STAINS FIRST, DID YOU GIVE THEM LABELS ALSO USING THE NUMBER 94?

A YES. THE JACKET WAS SUBSEQUENTLY LABELED AS 94D.

Q 94D AS IN DAVID?

A CORRECT.

Q WERE THE OTHER ITEMS OF CLOTHING WITHIN THAT BAG LABELED WITH OTHER LETTERS AFTER THE TERM OR NUMBER 94?

A YES.

Q ALL RIGHT.

SO 94D DESCRIBES THE JACKET, IS THAT RIGHT?

A CORRECT.

Q WITH RESPECT TO THE CUTTINGS OF THE POSITIVE PRESUMPTIVE BLOODSTAIN AREAS, CAN YOU TELL US WHERE THEY WERE LOCATED AND WHAT NUMBER THEY WERE ASSIGNED.

A SURE.

THE FIRST STAIN THAT I TESTED WHICH WAS LABELED 94D-1, THAT WAS LOCATED ON THE FRONT RIGHT OUTSIDE MIDDLE LAPEL AREA OF THE JACKET.

THE NEXT STAIN LABELED AS 94D-2, WHICH WAS LOCATED ON THE FRONT RIGHT OUTSIDE AREA OF THE JACKET NEAR THE SHOULDER.

AND THEN THE THIRD STAIN, 94D-3, A STAIN THAT WAS LOCATED ON THE BACK OF THE LEFT COLLAR OF THE JACKET.

Q ALL RIGHT.

MR. SORIANO, —

MR. CLARKE: WITH THE COURT’S PERMISSION, I’M GOING TO ASK THE WITNESS TO COME DOWN AND BASICALLY OBTAIN THE JACKET FROM ONE OF THE EXHIBITS ALREADY MARKED.

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

MR. CLARKE: MR. SORIANO, IF YOU COULD DO THAT. AND WE HAVE GLOVES PRESENT THERE ON THE WITNESS STAND OR IF YOU HAVE YOUR OWN, . . .

THE WITNESS: I HAVE THEM.
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q WHAT I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO IS LOOK AT A LARGE PAPER BAG THAT’S BEEN LABELED COURT’S EXHIBIT 80. AND IF YOU WOULD, FIRST OF ALL, TAKE A LOOK AT THE NOTATIONS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THAT BAG AND TELL US IF ANY OF THOSE ARE FAMILIAR TO YOU.

A YES. I AM FAMILIAR.

Q WHAT’S FAMILIAR TO YOU?

A THE INITIALS AND DATE AS WELL AS THE CASE NUMBER. BUT MAINLY IN PARTICULAR MY INITIALS.

Q ALL RIGHT.

IS THIS THE PARTICULAR LARGE PAPER BAG THAT YOU OBTAINED THE ITEMS OF CLOTHING THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED EARLIER AND THEN I ASSUME ULTIMATELY PLACED THEM BACK INTO?

A YES. THE EXTRA LARGE BROWN PAPER BAG.

Q ALL RIGHT.

IF YOU WOULD AT THIS TIME, IF YOU WOULD OPEN THE — IT APPEARS OPEN AT THIS TIME, BUT CAN YOU OBTAIN THE JACKET THAT YOU LABELED 94D.

A (THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)

Q WHAT I’M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO, FIRST OF ALL, IS THE PAPER AND PLASTIC INSIDE, CAN WE TAKE THAT OUT EASILY OR IS THAT ATTACHED?

A PERMISSION TO UNBUTTON THE JACKET TO —

Q YES. THAT’S FINE.

WHAT I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO ONCE YOU ARE ABLE TO GRAB JUST THE JACKET ITSELF, IS TO WALK OVER MORE CLOSELY IN FRONT OF THE JURY, AND I’M GOING TO ASK YOU TO LOCATE EACH OF THOSE THREE AREAS THAT WERE POSITIVE FOR BLOODSTAINING THAT YOU ULTIMATELY LABELED AREAS 94D-1, 2, AND 3. ALL RIGHT.

A (THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)

Q I’M SORRY. JUST STEP BACK A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE WE HAVE A WIDE ANGLE.

A SURE.

94D-1 LOCATED ON THIS AREA OF THE JACKET.

Q ALL RIGHT.

IF I CAN DESCRIBE IT FOR THE RECORD, MR. SORIANO, WHAT YOU’RE POINTING TO IS AN AREA THAT APPEARS TO BE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE JACKET IN AN AREA IMMEDIATELY NEXT TO THE ZIPPER. IS THAT CORRECT?

A CORRECT.

Q WOULD THAT BE AN AREA THAT IS EXPOSED TO THE OUTSIDE OR NOT WHEN THE ZIPPER IS PULLED UP? DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION?

A YES, I DO.

AGAIN THERE ARE A SERIES OF BUTTONS HERE. IT’S POSSIBLE TO BE EXPOSED PARTIALLY.

Q ALL RIGHT.

THAT WAS 94D-1.

A CORRECT.

Q CAN WE ACTUALLY SEE THE AREAS THAT YOU CUT OUT FROM THAT JACKET AFTER YOUR PRESUMPTIVE TESTS WERE PERFORMED?

A YES. IF YOU COULD NOTE THE NUMBERS AND THE CIRCLES WHICH ARE LABELED RIGHT HERE.

Q SO YOU ACTUALLY LABELED THE JACKET ITSELF AS WELL?

A YES, I DID.

Q IN ADDITION TO THE CUTOUTS THAT YOU THEN PRESERVED FOR LATER TESTING?

A YES. WHENEVER WE EXAMINE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, IF POSSIBLE, WE TRY TO LEAVE OUR IDENTIFYING INITIALS ON THERE, WHICH IS ON ONE OF THE BRAND NAME TAGS OF THE JACKET.

Q ALL RIGHT.

WHAT ABOUT 94D-2, CAN YOU TELL US WHERE IT WAS LOCATED?

A THE FRONT OUTSIDE AREA OF THE JACKET. UPPER RIGHT NEXT TO THE SHOULDER, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE.

MR. CLARKE: AND INDICATING FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN AREA IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND SHOULDER AREA OF THE JACKET ON THE FRONT PORTION WHERE THERE ARE TWO AREAS WHERE IT APPEARS FABRIC HAS BEEN REMOVED.
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q DID YOU LABEL THAT AREA OF THE JACKET AS WELL?

A YES, I DID.

Q ALL RIGHT.

AND IF YOU COULD INDICATE FOR US THE THIRD AREA THAT WAS POSITIVE FOR BLOODSTAIN.

A (THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)

Q ALL RIGHT.

MR. CLARKE: AND INDICATING FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, WHAT APPEARS TO BE ON THE BACK COLLAR OF THE JACKET IN THE BLUE AREA AS OPPOSED TO THE GREEN AREA, FAIRLY CENTRALLY LOCATED IN THE BACK NECK AREA.
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q IS THAT A FAIR DESCRIPTION, MR. SORIANO?

A MORE ON THE LEFT SIDE, BUT, YES.

Q ALL RIGHT.

AND DID YOU MARK THOSE AREAS AS WELL WITH THE PARTICULAR ITEM NUMBER THAT YOU TOOK THE CUTTING FROM AS WELL AS THE CONTROL?

A I DID.

Q OKAY.

IF YOU COULD, GO AHEAD AND REPACKAGE THAT FOR US.

A (THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)

Q JUST SO WE’RE CLEAR, THERE APPEAR TO BE TWO CUTOUTS FROM EACH OF THE THREE LOCATIONS. IS THAT CORRECT?

A CORRECT.

Q WHY WAS THAT, AGAIN?

A AGAIN, AFTER THE STAIN WAS TESTED POSITIVELY, POSITIVE FOR THE PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD, A SUBSTRATE CONTROL WAS COLLECTED WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE SUSPECTED STAIN.

Q AND IS THAT PRESERVED ALSO FOR D.N.A. ANALYSIS?

A CORRECT.

Q ALL RIGHT.

I WOULD LIKE TO — FIRST OF ALL, DID YOU TAKE EACH OF THESE CUTOUTS AND PRESERVE THEM AND LABEL THEM APPROPRIATELY SEPARATE FROM ONE ANOTHER?

A YES, I DID.

Q I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU IF IN THIS EXAMINATION OF ITEMS FROM THE CLEANER’S DID THAT INCLUDE YOUR EXAMINATION OF ONE OR MORE COMFORTERS?

A YES.

Q WAS ONE OF THOSE COMFORTERS STRIPED AS OPPOSED TO A DIFFERENT PATTERN OR COLOR?

A MAY I REFER TO MY NOTES?

Q YES.

A BY REFERRING TO MY REPORT, THIS WOULD BE PAGE 2 OF THE REPORT, YES, A MULTI-COLORED COMFORTER OR MULTI-COLORED DESIGNED STRIPE COMFORTER.

Q WAS THAT ASSIGNED AN ITEM NUMBER?

A YES, IT WAS.

Q WHAT WAS THAT?

A ITEM 93.

Q DID YOU OBTAIN OR DISCOVER ANY BLOODSTAINS ON THAT COMFORTER?

A ON ITEM 93 I DID NOT.

Q WHAT ABOUT TAPE LIFTS; ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM TAPE LIFTS?

A YES, I AM.

Q WHAT IS A TAPE LIFT?

A BASICALLY A TAPE LIFT IS LIKE A SQUARE PLASTIC TYPE OF A — LIKE, SAY, A SQUARE TYPE OF PLASTIC BOX LIKE WHICH HAS ON ONE SIDE AN ADHESIVE PORTION AND THE OTHER HAS LIKE A COVER. THE TAPE LIFT IS BASICALLY USED TO COLLECT SMALL AMOUNTS OF HAIRS OR FIBERS OFF FABRICS, WHICH IS APPLIED IN SUCH A FASHION TO PRESS AGAINST THE FABRIC AND COLLECT THOSE HAIRS AND FIBERS.

Q DID YOU PERFORM A TAPE-LIFTING PROCESS ON THE COMFORTER; THAT IS, THE STRIPED COMFORTER, ITEM NUMBER 93?

A YES, I DID.

Q ALL RIGHT.

WHAT I AM GOING TO ASK YOU IS A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT — AND YOU HAVE DESCRIBED HOW YOU PERFORM A TAPE LIFT. DO YOU TAKE ONE OF THOSE PADS AND GO OVER THE ENTIRE COMFORTER?

A I DO. IF IN MY FIRST, INITIAL OBSERVATION IF I NOTICE HAIRS, OBVIOUS HAIRS PRESENT ON THE FABRIC OR MATERIAL, A TAPE LIFT IS THEN PERFORMED IN LIKE AN S TYPE OF FASHION COVERING ALL AREAS OF THE FABRIC.

Q ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM DID YOU USE ONE TAPE LIFT OR MORE THAN ONE TAPE LIFT?

A I USED MORE THAN ONE TAPE LIFT.

Q AS A RESULT OF YOUR TAPE LIFTING OF THAT COMFORTER, DID YOU OBSERVE WHAT APPEARED TO BE HAIRS?

A I AM LOOKING AT MY NOTES ON PAGE 30 AND PAGE 31. THE FIRST TAPE LIFT, WHICH WAS LABELED AS 93-A, MY OBSERVATION WAS THAT APPARENT SHORT AND LONG BLACK HAIRS, ALONG WITH TWO SMALL PIECES OF BROWN PAPER, AN APPARENT BLUE FIBER AND APPARENT BLUE-GRAY FIBER WERE OBSERVED.

ON PAGE 31 OF MY NOTES A TAPE LIFT LABELED AS 93-B, WHAT I OBSERVED WERE APPARENT SHORT AND LONG BLACK HAIRS, BROWN, WHITE, AND BLOND HAIRS, AND BLACK AND WHITE FIBERS THAT WERE OBSERVED ON THAT TAPE LIFT.

Q DID YOU PRESERVE THESE TAPE LIFTS AND IDENTIFY THEM BY THE NUMBERS AND SUBLETTERS THAT YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBED?

A YES, I DID.

Q ALL RIGHT.

WHAT I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO, MR. SORIANO, IS HAVE YOU LOOK AT ONE MORE BAG. I DON’T THINK YOU ARE GOING TO NEED GLOVES BECAUSE I — ALTHOUGH YOU MAY BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO LOOK INSIDE IT — IS ASK YOU TO LOOK AT A LARGE BAG THAT’S BEEN MARKED EXHIBIT 79.

AND, FIRST OF ALL, ASK YOU IF ANY OF THE NOTATIONS ON THE OUTSIDE OF EXHIBIT 79 ARE FAMILIAR TO YOU.

A YES. I NOTICE MY — I OBSERVE MY INITIALS AND DATE.

Q IS THIS, THEN, THE PAPER BAG THAT YOU INITIALLY OBTAINED THAT IS RETRIEVED THE STRIPED COMFORTER FROM? ACTUALLY, I’M SORRY, 93, IF YOU WOULD REMOVE THAT TOP ITEM, TELL US IF YOU CAN SEE THE COMFORTER.

A YES, I CAN SEE THE STRIPED COMFORTER.

Q ALL RIGHT.

IT’S INSIDE THE BAG, EXHIBIT 79.

A YES, IT IS.

Q AND IS THAT THE COMFORTER — HOLD THAT FOR A MOMENT LONGER. IS THAT THE COMFORTER THAT YOU OBTAINED THESE TWO TAPE LIFTS, 93-A AND 93-B?

A THAT IS CORRECT.

Q THEN IF YOU WOULD GO AHEAD AND JUST PLACE THE ITEM BACK IN THERE.

A (THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)

Q IS THAT COMFORTER THE SAME COLOR OR A DIFFERENT COLOR AND PATTERN AS THE WHAT LOOKS LIKE A PILLOW SHAM THAT’S ON TOP CURRENTLY?

A I’M SORRY. COULD YOU PLEASE REPEAT THAT?

Q ACTUALLY WHY DON’T I HAVE YOU PULL OUT THE COMFORTER. I’M SORRY. FORTUNATELY YOU STILL HAVE YOUR GLOVES ON.

A (THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)

Q AND IF YOU CAN, PULL THE PAPER DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT SO WE CAN SEE THE ACTUAL FABRIC. IS THAT POSSIBLE? MAYBE I CAN HOLD THIS.

A (THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)

Q AND IS THAT THE STRIPED PATTERN THAT YOU’RE SHOWING THE JURY RIGHT NOW?

A THAT IS CORRECT.

Q ALL RIGHT.

THEN IF WE COULD REPACKAGE IT.

A (THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)

Q AND YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT AGAIN. THANK YOU.

A THANK YOU.

Q DID YOUR EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE ALSO INCLUDE A BEAN BAG CHAIR?

A YES, IT DID.

Q CAN YOU TELL US WHAT ITEM NUMBER WAS ASSIGNED THAT ITEM AND A BASIC DESCRIPTION OF WHAT IT IS.

A I’M REFERRING TO PAGE 6 OF MY REPORT. ITEM 8 WAS CONTAINED IN A ONE EXTRA LARGE BROWN PAPER BAG THAT CONTAINED ONE CREAM-COLORED BEAN BAG CHAIR.

Q ALL RIGHT.

I’M GOING TO SHOW YOU A PHOTOGRAPH, IF I MAY. IT’S BEEN MARKED EXHIBIT 23 PREVIOUSLY. AND IN PARTICULAR IF I CAN DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO PHOTOGRAPH J ON EXHIBIT 23 AND ASK IF THAT ITEM APPEARS FAMILIAR TO YOU.

A IT LOOKS FAMILIAR.

Q IS THIS THE BEAN BAG CHAIR THAT YOU EXAMINED, ITEM NUMBER 8?

A ITEM NUMBER 8 IS THE BEAN BAG CHAIR THAT I EXAMINED.

Q WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF YOUR EXAMINATION OF IT?

A STAINS WERE NOTED THAT WERE CHEMICALLY TESTED FOR THE PRESUMPTIVE TESTS FOR BLOOD. SEVEN STAINS TESTED POSITIVE FOR THE CHEMICAL PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD FROM ITEM 8.

Q FIRST OF ALL, WHERE WERE THOSE STAINS LOCATED? AND IF THE PHOTOGRAPH J WILL HELP US ON EXHIBIT 23, I BELIEVE THERE’S A POINTER OR I’LL HAND YOU A POINTER. IF THAT WOULD HELP YOU IN DESCRIBING THE LOCATION OF THE STAINS.

A BY REFERRING TO PAGE 118 OF MY NOTES TO HELP ME POINT OUT THE AREA OF THE STAINS WHERE I OBSERVED THESE.

Q ALL RIGHT.

THEN USING PHOTOGRAPH J ON EXHIBIT 23, CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHERE YOU LOCATED THOSE. I THINK YOU SAID SEVEN STAINS.

A CORRECT.

THE SEVEN STAINS WERE LOCATED ON THE — WHAT I DESIGNATED AS THE BOTTOM AREA OF THE BEAN BAG CHAIR. THIS IS THE AREA THAT I DESIGNATED AS THE BOTTOM OF THE BEAN BAG CHAIR. THESE ARE THE STAINS WHERE I FOUND THEM.

Q HOW CAN YOU TELL THAT’S THE BOTTOM AREA?

A WHAT I NOTED AND WHAT I NOTED AS I DESIGNATED AS A BOTTOM AREA WAS A ZIPPER THAT WAS PRESENT WHICH YOU CAN SEE HERE OR A FORM OF. ALONG WITH THE BRAND NAME TAGS THAT WAS PRESENT ON THE LINING AREA OF WHAT I DESIGNATED AS THE BOTTOM AREA OF THE BEAN BAG CHAIR.

Q SO THAT’S WHAT LED YOU TO INTERPRET THAT AS THE BOTTOM AREA, THE ZIPPER AND THE LABELING?

A CORRECT.

MR. FELDMAN: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. THE WITNESS USED THE WORD HERE, AND IT’S NOT DESCRIBED FOR THE RECORD.

THE COURT: HE’S BEEN MAKING REFERENCE TO PHOTOGRAPH J THROUGHOUT.

MR. CLARKE: YES. I THOUGHT HIS DESCRIPTION ACTUALLY DESCRIBED WHAT HE WAS POINTING AT.

THE COURT: YES.
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q ALL RIGHT. WITH RESPECT TO THESE BLOODSTAINS, WERE THEY ALL LOCATED IN WHAT YOU DESIGNATED THE BOTTOM AREA?

A YES, THEY WERE.

Q DID YOU CUT THEM OUT AND LABEL THEM INDEPENDENTLY OF ONE ANOTHER?

A YES, I DID.

Q WHAT LABELS DID YOU GIVE THEM?

A FOR THE SEVEN STAINS THAT I TESTED POSITIVE FOR THE PRESUMPTIVE TEST, ALL OF THEM WERE RESPECTIVELY NUMBERED ONE THROUGH SEVEN INDEPENDENTLY, AND THEN ONE SUBSTRATE CONTROL WAS COLLECTED OFF THIS BOTTOM AREA AS WELL.

Q ALL RIGHT.

NOW I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION IF I COULD TO BEDDING IDENTIFIED TO YOU AS HAVING COME FROM THE VICTIM’S BEDROOM. DID YOU EXAMINE SUCH AN ITEM?

A YES, I DID.

Q WHAT ITEM NUMBER HAD IT BEEN ASSIGNED?

A COULD YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC?

Q SURE. IN PARTICULAR WAS THERE A BLANKET THAT YOU EXAMINED IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM THE VICTIM’S BED?

THE COURT: COUNSEL, IF YOU’VE GOT AN ITEM NUMBER, IT CERTAINLY WOULD ASSIST HIM I’M SURE.

MR. CLARKE: ALL RIGHT.
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q I THINK IT’S ITEM NUMBER 10.

A COULD YOU BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT?

Q SURE. IT MIGHT BE ITEM 10-7 I BELIEVE.

A YES, I DID.

Q OKAY.

WHAT WAS THAT ITEM?

A ONE MULTI-COLORED BLANKET WITH DESIGN PATTERNS, A LARGE POCKET.

Q DID YOU FIND ANY BLOODSTAINS ON THAT?

A YES, I DID.

Q ALL RIGHT.

AND DID YOU IN FACT CUT THAT PORTION OUT AND PRESERVE IT, LABEL IT, AND IMPOUND IT APPROPRIATELY?

A YES, I DID.

Q WITH WHAT DESIGNATION?

A I’M LOOKING AT PAGE 145 OF MY NOTES. THE POSITIVE STAIN THAT TESTED POSITIVE FOR THE PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD WAS ITEM NUMBER 10-7A.

Q WHERE WAS THAT STAIN LOCATED BY YOU ON THE BLANKET?

A THIS IS NOTED ON WHAT I DESIGNATED AS SIDE B.

Q ALL RIGHT.

COULD YOU TELL WHICH SIDE WAS WHICH?

A YES, I CAN. WHEN I OBSERVED THIS BLANKET AND I MADE MY NOTATION, THERE WAS A POCKET, LIKE A PATTERN POCKET, ON ONE OF THE SIDES OF THE BLANKET. THAT WHERE THE POCKET RESIDED I DESIGNATED THAT AS SIDE A. THE OTHER SIDE OPPOSITE OF THAT WAS DESIGNATED AS SIDE B.

Q I WOULD LIKE TO NOW TURN YOUR ATTENTION IF I COULD TO STAIRWAY STAINS; THAT IS, BLOODSTAINS, POTENTIAL BLOODSTAINS, THAT WERE IDENTIFIED TO YOU AS COMING FROM THE STAIRWAY AREA OF THE VICTIM’S RESIDENCE. DO YOU RECALL THOSE?

A YES, I DO.

Q WERE THEY DESIGNATED ITEMS 14 WITH SUB NUMBERS AS WELL?

A YES, THEY WERE.

Q WHAT ROLE, IF ANY, DID YOU PLAY WITH RESPECT TO THOSE STAINS?

A AGAIN A REQUEST WAS GIVEN TO ME TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OF HUMAN BLOOD.

Q WHAT DID YOU DETERMINE WITH REGARD TO THOSE ITEMS?

A NO HUMAN BLOOD WAS FOUND ON — I’M REFERRING TO PAGE 12 OF MY REPORT. NO HUMAN BLOOD WAS DETECTED ON THE REDDISH-BROWN STAIN OBSERVED ON THE SWAB WHICH WAS LABELED AS ITEM 14-4.

Q SO YOU TESTED ONE OF THE THREE STAINS, IS THAT RIGHT?

A THAT IS CORRECT.

Q AND DETERMINED THAT — FIRST OF ALL, WERE YOU ABLE TO DETERMINE IF IT WAS BLOOD?

A FROM THE TEST IT GAVE ME A RESULT THAT NO HUMAN BLOOD WAS FOUND.

Q SO IT WAS NOT HUMAN BLOOD?

A CORRECT.

Q NOW I WOULD LIKE TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO ITEMS IDENTIFIED TO YOU AS HAVING COME FROM THE RESIDENCE OF MR. WESTERFIELD. DID YOU TAKE PART IN EXAMINATION OF SOME OF THOSE ITEMS?

A YES, I DID.

Q ALL RIGHT.

IN PARTICULAR, IF I CAN CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO ITEMS IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM CLOTHING IN THE DRYER, ITEM NUMBER 7. DID YOU LOOK AT THOSE ITEMS?

A YES, I DID.

Q DID THAT CONSIST OF A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ARTICLES OF CLOTHING?

A YES, I DID.

Q IN EXAMINING THAT, DID YOU DISCOVER ANY HAIRS?

A NOW REFERRING TO PAGE 2 OF MY REPORT. I OBSERVED HAIRS.

Q DID THAT INCLUDE BLOND HAIRS?

A COULD YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC IN TERMS OF WHAT ITEM?

Q ALL RIGHT.

WELL, IN ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU DISCOVERED, WITHOUT HAVING YOU GO THROUGH ALL OF YOUR NOTES, PERHAPS WE CAN SHORTEN IT. YOU DISCOVERED HAIRS IN THE EXAMINATION OF VARIOUS ITEMS THAT WERE INSIDE THE DRYER, ITEM 7.

A CORRECT.

Q WHAT STEPS, IF ANY, DID YOU TAKE TO PRESERVE THEM?

A AFTER IDENTIFYING HAIRS ON THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, SOME HAIRS WERE LEFT SAME AS ORIGINAL ON THE ACTUAL ITEM, BUT SOME HAIRS WERE ACTUALLY COLLECTED. THOSE HAIRS THAT WERE COLLECTED WERE PLACED IN A PAPER BINDLE, A CLEAN PAPER BINDLE, THAT WAS LABELED APPROPRIATELY AND THEN PLACED INTO A CLEAN ENVELOPE.

Q WHAT I’M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO, MR. SORIANO, IS I’M GOING TO SHOW YOU AN EXHIBIT THAT’S BEEN MARKED EXHIBIT 105 I BELIEVE IT IS. AND WITHOUT OPENING THAT, DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE AN ITEM THAT WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS YOU EXAMINED IN ITEM 7, CLOTHING FROM THE DRYER?

A YES.

Q IN PARTICULAR WHAT?

A WHAT I DESCRIBED HERE WAS ITEM 7I AS MEDIUM BOXER SHORTS.

Q WAS THAT AN ITEM THAT YOU DISCOVERED A HAIR, EITHER ATTACHED TO OR INSIDE?

A I’M REFERRING TO PAGE 54 OF MY NOTES, AND I WILL READ IT AS FOLLOWS: OBSERVED TWO LONG APPARENT BROWN/BLOND HAIRS ON THE INSIDE AREA OF 7I. THESE WERE THEN PLACED INTO A CLEAN PAPER BINDLE AND CLEAN ENVELOPE.

Q SO THESE WERE HAIRS TAKEN FROM THE BOXER SHORTS, 7I?

A CORRECT.

Q AND YOU BASICALLY COLLECTED THOSE HAIRS, PACKAGED THEM, AND LABELED THEM AS 7I-H?

A THAT IS CORRECT.

Q DOES H STAND FOR HAIR?

A TO MY NUMBER DESIGNATIONS, YES.

Q ALL RIGHT.

WE CAN PUT THAT — IN FACT, LET ME REMOVE THAT EXHIBIT IF I CAN.

I’M NOW GOING TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO ITEMS IDENTIFIED AS HAVING COME FROM THE BEDDING OF THE RESIDENCE OF MR. WESTERFIELD AND ASK IF YOU EXAMINED THOSE ITEMS.

A COULD YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC?

Q SURE. DID YOU EXAMINE AN ITEM LABELED AS BEDDING FROM THE MASTER BEDROOM, ITEM NUMBER 9?

A YES, I DID.

Q DID THAT INCLUDE PILLOWCASES?

A YES, IT DID.

Q A FITTED SHEET?

A YES.

Q AND A FLAT SHEET?

A I DESCRIBED IT AS A BED SHEET.

Q WHEN YOU USE THE TERM BED SHEET, WHAT DID YOU MEAN?

A BED SHEET MEANING IT DIFFERED FROM A FITTED WHERE IT MIGHT HAVE STRETCHABLE COMPONENTS TO FIT RIGHT OVER A MATTRESS. A BED SHEET MAY BE SOMETHING THAT COVERS THAT FITTED BED SHEET.

Q IN YOUR EXAMINATION, LET’S START WITH THE PILLOWCASES, DID YOU DISCOVER ANY HAIRS THAT YOU COLLECTED AND LABELED?

A IS THIS REFERRING TO THE FLAT SHEET THAT YOU–

Q THE PILLOWCASES.

A I’M SORRY. THE PILLOWCASES, YES, I DID OBSERVE HAIRS AND/OR FIBERS.

Q AND YOU COLLECTED THEM?

A I DID COLLECT THEM.

Q AND DID YOU PLACE THOSE IN A SEPARATE CONTAINER AND LABEL THEM?

A YES, I DID.

Q WITH WHAT NOTATION?

A I’M REFERRING TO PAGE 105 OF MY NOTES. ON ITEM 9A, LONG — I’M JUST GOING TO READ OFF MY NOTES. I NOTED LONG BROWN, BLACK, AND WHITE APPARENT HAIRS, SHORT BLACK AND BROWN APPARENT CURLY HAIRS. APPARENT WHITE FEATHERLIKE AND BLUE-GREEN FIBERS THAT WERE THEN COLLECTED INTO A PAPER BINDLE AND CLEAN ENVELOPE WHICH WAS LABELED THEN AS ITEM 9A-H.

Q OKAY.

WHAT ABOUT THE — I THINK YOU — I THINK EVEN YOU CALLED IT A FITTED SHEET. WAS THAT LABELED ITEM 9-C, THE ACTUAL SHEET ITSELF?

A YES, IT WAS.

Q AND DID YOU COLLECT ANY HAIRS FROM THAT PARTICULAR FITTED SHEET 9C?

A AGAIN I’M REFERRING TO PAGE 107 OF MY NOTES. AND, YES, I DID COLLECT SOME HAIRS.

Q DID YOU COLLECT THOSE HAIRS, PUT THEM IN A SEPARATE CONTAINER, AND LABEL THEM 9C-H?

A YES, I DID.

Q LASTLY, WITH REGARD TO THE BEDDING, DID YOU EXAMINE THE FLAT SHEET OR I THINK YOU CALLED BED SHEET, IS THAT RIGHT?

A YES, I DID.

Q DID YOU LABEL THAT 9-D?

A I’M REFERRING TO PAGE 109 OF MY NOTES. YES, I DID.

Q AND DID YOU COLLECT HAIRS FROM THAT PARTICULAR ITEM?

A YES, I DID.

Q DID YOU PACKAGE THE HAIRS SEPARATELY AND LABEL THEM 9D-H?

A YES, I DID.

Q ALL RIGHT.

MR. SORIANO, LAST AREA THAT I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT IS DID YOU PLAY A ROLE IN PREPARING ITEMS FOR SHIPMENT FROM THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT LABORATORY TO ANY OTHER LABORATORIES?

A YES, I DID.

Q DID THAT INCLUDE A SHIPMENT THAT YOU PREPARED ON OR ABOUT APRIL 29TH OF THIS YEAR?

A (PAUSE.)

I’M SORRY. OKAY. I’M REFERRING TO PAGE 200 OF MY NOTES. AND I’M ALSO REFERRING TO AN ADMINISTRATION DOCUMENT THAT HAS A LETTER DATED APRIL 29, 2002.

Q ALL RIGHT.

DID YOU PREPARE VARIOUS ITEMS FOR SHIPMENT TO A LABORATORY CALLED BODE, B-O-D-E, TECHNOLOGY?

A YES, I DID.

Q DID THAT SHIPMENT THAT YOU PREPARED INCLUDE THE ITEM 2-1, STAIN FROM THE VICTIM CLOTHING?

A OKAY. IN MY NOTES ON PAGE 203, THE ITEM THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO, WHICH IS ITEM 2-1, —

Q 2-1, CORRECT.

A OKAY. THE ITEM THAT MAY REFER TO THAT, THIS IS ACCORDING TO THE DESCRIPTION ON THE PACKAGING, I RECEIVED THE PACKAGING AS LABELED AS PROPERTY TAG 850125FB-11. AND ACCORDING TO THE LABELING ON THAT, THAT CONTAINED ITEM 2-1.

Q ALL RIGHT.

DID IT ALSO INCLUDE, THAT IS, THE SHIPMENT, WHAT WAS LABELED AS 3A-1, CLOTHING FROM THE VICTIM’S ROOM?

A AGAIN ACCORDING TO WHAT I HAVE DESCRIBED HERE, YES.

Q DID IT ALSO INCLUDE THE COLLECTION ITEM, THE ITEM COLLECTED FROM THE BLANKET IN THE VICTIM’S ROOM WHICH YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER AS 10-7A?

A AGAIN I’M REFERRING TO THE SAME PAGE, PAGE 203, OF MY NOTES. AND, YES, IT DID CONTAIN ITEM 10-7A.

Q DID YOUR SHIPMENT ALSO INCLUDE WHAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS FINGERNAIL SCRAPINGS THAT WERE GIVEN THE DESIGNATION TE-JS4?

A YES.

Q DID IT ALSO INCLUDE AN ITEM IDENTIFIED AS NUMBER 48, A TAPE LIFT WITH A FLAKE?

A MY DESCRIPTION FOR WHAT YOU HAD JUST DESCRIBED WAS UNDER A LABELING OF PROPERTY TAG 850152TE-TK5.

Q ALL RIGHT.

WAS THERE ANY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ABOUT IT BEING A FLAKE?

A YES.

Q ALL RIGHT.

AND, LASTLY, DID THAT SHIPMENT INCLUDE AN ITEM IDENTIFIED AS 53F-B2, A PILLOW CUTTING?

A I AM REFERRING TO PAGE 201 OF MY NOTES, AND, YES, IT DOES REFER TO 53F-B2.

Q ALL RIGHT.

I WOULD NOW LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION — AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE WERE THOSE ITEMS TRANSPORTED TO THAT LABORATORY?

A AFTER PREPARING THOSE ITEMS FOR SHIPMENT, THEY WERE THEN GIVEN TO THE PROPERTY ROOM FOR SHIPMENT.

Q NOW I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO A DIFFERENT SHIPMENT THAT WAS PREPARED ON MAY 3RD OF THIS YEAR. DO YOU RECALL PARTICIPATING IN PREPARING A SHIPMENT INVOLVING HAIRS?

A YES. I DO RECALL SHIPPING OUT SOME HAIRS.

Q WAS THAT ON OR ABOUT MAY 3RD OF THIS YEAR?

A YES.

Q ALL RIGHT.

HOW MANY HAIRS DID THAT SHIPMENT INCLUDE?

A AGAIN I’M NOT AWARE OF HOW MANY INSIDE. THE ONLY THING I CAN REFER TO IS THE LETTER THAT WAS ACCOMPANYING WITH THAT.

Q ALL RIGHT.

FIRST OF ALL, WAS THE SHIPMENT NOTED AS TE-TD14?

A YES.

Q ALL RIGHT.

AND THAT WAS SHIPPED OFF TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE ALSO TO BODE TECHNOLOGY?

A CORRECT.

Q YOU JUST SIMPLY CANNOT IDENTIFY THE INDIVIDUAL HAIRS THAT WERE INSIDE THAT PACKAGE.

A AGAIN, WHEN I RECEIVED THIS PACKAGE, IT WAS SEALED. I DID NOT OPEN IT AT ANY TIME. AND I JUST, ACCORDING TO WHAT THE LABELING ARE, I CAN ONLY JUST TELL YOU IT WAS ONE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THOSE ITEMS.

Q THAT’S FINE. WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT LATER.

DID YOU ALSO PARTICIPATE IN A SHIPMENT OF ANY DOG HAIRS IDENTIFIED TO YOU AS ITEM NUMBER 140?

A YES. ITEM 140.

Q WAS THAT PREPARED ON OR ABOUT APRIL 26TH OF THIS YEAR?

A IT WAS PREPARED AROUND 26TH, YES.

Q AND WAS THAT FOR SHIPMENT TO A LABORATORY CALLED VETERINARY GENETICS LAB.?

A YES.

Q DID ITEM NUMBER 140 CONSIST OF SWABS TAKEN FROM THE DOG LAYLA?

A YES.

Q ALL RIGHT.

LASTLY, MR. SORIANO, WERE YOU EVER INSIDE THE VAN DAM RESIDENCE?

A NO, I WAS NOT.

Q WERE YOU EVER INSIDE THE HOME OF DAVID WESTERFIELD?

A NO, I WAS NOT.

Q WERE YOU EVER INSIDE THE MOTOR HOME OF DAVID WESTERFIELD?

A NO, I WAS NOT.

MR. CLARKE: THANK YOU.

I DON’T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q GOOD MORNING.

A GOOD MORNING.

Q IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH WHAT YOU TOLD US WAS THAT AT LEAST IN THE BEGINNING SOME SPECIAL PROCEDURES WERE PUT IN PLACE WITH REGARD TO THIS CASE. IS THAT RIGHT?

A IF I MAY HAVE A MOMENT TO PUT MY NOTES TOGETHER. . .

Q PLEASE. YES. WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO, SIR.

A THANK YOU.

IF YOU COULD PLEASE REPEAT THE QUESTION.

Q I THINK YOU TOLD US ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, SIR, THAT CERTAIN SPECIAL PROCEDURES WERE PUT IN PLACE WITH REGARD TO THIS CASE. IS THAT RIGHT?

A YES.

Q YOU TOLD US THAT THERE HAD BEEN MEETINGS WITH SEVERAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS. IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

REPHRASE IT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q DID YOU HAVE MEETINGS WITH DISTRICT ATTORNEYS?

A YES, I DID.

Q HOW MANY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS WERE THERE?

A IN TERMS OF MEETINGS?

Q YES, SIR.

A I’VE ONLY MET WITH MAYBE JUST TWO.

Q OKAY.

AND WHEN DID YOU — WHICH TWO?

A THAT WOULD BE WOODY CLARKE AND JEFF DUSEK.

Q ALL RIGHT.

AND WHEN DID THOSE MEETINGS START, SIR?

A ONE MEETING WAS PRIOR TO THE PRELIMINARY TESTIMONY. AND THEN ANOTHER MEETING WAS ALSO WITH WOODY CLARKE BEFORE THIS TESTIMONY.

Q OKAY. I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT MEETING — WELL, STRIKE THAT.

WHAT YOU’RE DISCUSSING ARE MEETINGS THAT YOU ENGAGED IN IN PREPARATION FOR YOUR TESTIMONY, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?

A CORRECT.

Q I’M NOT TRYING TO DIRECT YOU THAT WAY. I THOUGHT YOU HAD SAID ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT CERTAIN SPECIAL PROCEDURES WERE PUT IN PLACE TO HANDLE THE MASS VOLUME OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.

A CORRECT.

Q WITH REGARD TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE PROCEDURES, I THOUGHT YOU HAD ALSO SAID THAT YOU HAD MET WITH I THOUGHT IT WAS SEVERAL D. A.’S TO DISCUSS HOW — AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO DISCUSS HOW BEST TO PROCEED IN A CASE WHICH HAD SO MUCH EVIDENCE.

A YES.

Q WHEN DID THOSE MEETINGS, WHEN DID THAT MEETING OR MEETINGS START, SIR?

A COULD YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC? IS IT DIRECTLY WITH ME OR IN TERMS OF OTHER MEETINGS WITH OTHER SUPERVISORS?

Q WELL, ALL I’M — I’M SORRY. I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THE PROCEDURES WERE PUT IN PLACE.

A CORRECT.

Q AND I ASSUMED WITHOUT KNOWING THAT YOU HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THAT PROCESS. SO I’M ASKING YOU ABOUT WHATEVER MEETINGS YOU MAY HAVE ENGAGED IN WITH REGARD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OR DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIAL PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS THE EVIDENCE ISSUES IN THIS CASE.

A OKAY. LET ME BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE IT.

Q PLEASE.

A OKAY.

SEVERAL MEETINGS WERE TOGETHER. SOMETIMES IN THE ABSENCE OF ME, WHICH ALSO JUST INCLUDE MY SUPERVISOR AND DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS. IN TURN THAT INFORMATION WAS THEN INFORMATION — I WAS INFORMED BY MY IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR OF THOSE MEETINGS. THEN THERE WERE MEETINGS THAT ALSO INCLUDED SUPERVISORS, LABORATORY MEMBERS, AND PARTICIPATED IN THIS CASE THAT I ALSO WAS INVOLVED IN, THAT I WAS INSIDE THE SAME MEETING ROOM. THEN I ALSO HAD VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WOODY CLARKE ON THE PHONE AND IN PERSON DISCUSSING THIS CASE. SO THERE ARE SEVERAL GENERAL MEETINGS, IN AND OUT. AGAIN, IF YOU NEED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC.

Q WITH REGARD TO THE MEETINGS THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED THE CHANGE IN PROCEDURES THAT THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT UTILIZED IN CONNECTION WITH EVIDENCE-GATHERING OR EVIDENCE SEGREGATION, HOW MANY OF THOSE MEETINGS WERE THERE?

MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q YOU JUST TOLD ME, SIR, THAT CERTAIN PROCEDURES WERE PUT IN PLACE AND THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL MEETINGS. I WANT TO KNOW WITH REGARD TO THOSE MEETINGS HOW MANY IS SEVERAL.

A I HAVE TO REFER TO MY DATES ON MY NOTES.

Q WELL, WAS IT MORE THAN FIVE?

A APPROXIMATELY FROM WHAT I WAS INVOLVED, MAYBE ABOUT TWO. MORE THAN TWO.

Q AND THEN YOU HEARD ABOUT OTHERS, IS THAT RIGHT?

A CORRECT.

Q AND WHEN YOU USE THE WORD SEVERAL, WHAT NUMBER DO YOU MEAN TO COMMUNICATE?

A THAT COULD BE ANY NUMBER MORE THAN TWO.

Q A HUNDRED?

A NOT A HUNDRED. IN THIS CASE NOT A HUNDRED.

Q SO THERE’S PARAMETERS WHEN YOU USE THE WORD, RIGHT?

A CORRECT.

Q HAD YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A CASE WHERE PROCEDURES WERE IN ANY — STRIKE THAT.

WERE PROCEDURES ALTERED OR CHANGED SO THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE COULD ADDRESS THE VOLUME OF MATERIAL THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT HAD TO DEAL WITH?

MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. I THINK THAT’S VAGUE.

THE COURT: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?

THE WITNESS: NOT REALLY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT — WELL, BEFORE THIS CASE HAPPENED, WAS THERE A PROCEDURE IN YOUR LABORATORY THAT WAS UTILIZED IN ALL CASES OR IN MOST CASES?

A THERE IS A GENERAL SET OF PROCEDURES.

Q AFTER THIS CASE HAPPENED, DID THAT GENERAL SET OF PROCEDURES CHANGE IN ANY MANNER?

A THERE WERE SOME INSTANCES WHERE ACTUAL COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN OTHERS WERE TAKEN THAT — TO DEAL WITH THE LARGE AMOUNT OF ITEMS OF EVIDENCE.

Q AND YOU TOLD US ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT, FOR INSTANCE, A PARTICULAR ROOM WAS CREATED WHERE ONLY THE VAN DAM RESIDENCE MATERIALS WOULD GO, AND ANOTHER ROOM WAS I GUESS SET ASIDE WHERE ONLY THE WESTERFIELD MATERIALS WOULD GO. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A YES.

Q AND THAT’S UNUSUAL OR — STRIKE THAT.

THAT’S A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCE FROM THE WAY LAW ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDED PRIOR TO THIS CASE, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?

A AGAIN, THAT, IF I COULD BE SPECIFIC ON THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE SO THAT – AS CRIMINALISTS AND LABORATORY PERSONNEL, WE TAKE PRECAUTIONS IN TERMS OF PREVENTING ITEMS OF EVIDENCE FROM THE SUSPECT AND THE VICTIM TO BE ANALYZED IN THE SAME ROOM AT THE SAME TIME.

Q WHY?

A TO PREVENT CROSS-CONTAMINATION.

Q WHAT’S THAT?

A IT’S THE UNEXPECTED TRANSFER FROM ONE SOURCE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TO ANOTHER SOURCE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

Q AND YOU CAN ONLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF CROSS-CONTAMINATION WHEN THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE GET TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR AT LEAST TO YOUR LABORATORY, IS THAT RIGHT?

A COULD YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC, SIR?

Q YES.

EVIDENCE COMES TO YOU AS EVIDENCE IS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I’M SAYING?

A YES.

Q YOU TAKE PRECAUTIONS NOT TO, MY WORD, COMMINGLE THE EVIDENCE, IS THAT RIGHT?

A YES, I DO.

Q AND THE REASON YOU AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TAKE PRECAUTIONS NOT TO COMMINGLE THE EVIDENCE IS BECAUSE AS YOU POINTED OUT THERE’S A CONCERN ABOUT CROSS-CONTAMINATION. RIGHT?

A CORRECT.

Q AND YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF YOUR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES YOU DON’T DO ANYTHING TO CROSS-CONTAMINATE THE EVIDENCE.

A CORRECT.

Q HOWEVER, IF THE EVIDENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN CROSS-CONTAMINATED, YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THAT BEFORE IT GETS TO THE LABORATORY, CORRECT?

MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

YOU NEED NOT ANSWER.
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT EVIDENCE HAS BEEN CROSS-CONTAMINATED PRIOR TO ITS ARRIVAL AT THE LABORATORY?

A I DO NOT KNOW.

Q SO YOU CAN ONLY TAKE THE EVIDENCE AS IT’S PRESENTED TO YOU, IS THAT RIGHT?

A AS IT IS PRESENTED IN ITS SEALED CONTAINERS.

Q ALL RIGHT.

A PACKING.

Q BUT YOU DON’T KNOW BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT — YOU TOLD US IN THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR YOU WERE NOT ON SCENE WHEN THE EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED, IS THAT CORRECT?

A THAT IS CORRECT.

Q SO YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AT THE SCENE; WE NEED TO TALK TO THE SCENE COLLECTORS TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THERE.

A CORRECT.

Q WHAT OTHER PROCEDURES WERE PUT IN PLACE TO INSURE THAT WITHIN THE LABORATORY CROSS-CONTAMINATION WAS AVOIDED, IF ANY?

A AGAIN COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ANALYSTS TO IDENTIFY, YOU KNOW, WHAT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THEY WERE EXAMINING. AGAIN FOR GENERAL TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES WHEN EXAMINING ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, CLEAN GLOVES ARE USED, EXAMINATION AREAS ARE CLEANED, STERILE OR CLEAN UTENSILS OR TOOLS OR SCISSORS OF THAT NATURE ARE USED. THINGS OF THAT PARTICULAR NATURE.

Q AND BASICALLY YOU DISCUSSED WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AND MEMBERS OF YOUR STAFF THE BEST APPROACH TO SUIT THIS CASE, IS THAT RIGHT?

A AN AGREEMENT CONSENSUS BETWEEN THOSE MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS CAME ABOUT.

Q SIR, WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE, AND MORE SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU FIRST SAW THE JACKET THAT’S 94, I THINK IT’S 94, AND YOU HAVE HAD IT OUT, IT’S THE JACKET THAT YOU SHOWED TO THE JURY, —

A 94D.

Q YES.

— WHEN THAT CAME TO YOU, IT WAS ON A HANGER, IS THAT RIGHT?

A CORRECT.

Q YOU OPENED IT UP, IS THAT RIGHT?

A I OPENED UP THE EXTRA LARGE BROWN PAPER BAG THAT CONTAINED THAT JACKET WHICH I THEN OPENED.

Q AND AT SOME POINT YOU WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE EXISTENCE OF STAINING, IS THAT RIGHT?

A CORRECT.

Q WITH REGARD TO THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU PRESERVED YOUR INITIAL OBSERVATION, DID YOU TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH?

A YES, I DID.

Q WHAT KIND OF PHOTOGRAPH?

A WELL, WHEN I FIRST OBSERVED, BEFORE I DO ANY INITIAL OBSERVATION OF THE JACKET, I WOULD TAKE AN OVER-ALL PHOTO OF THE JACKET.

Q USING WHAT KIND OF A CAMERA?

A A POLAROID CAMERA, INSTANT CAMERA.

Q HAVE YOU RECEIVED TRAINING IN THE AREA OF PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE BY PHOTOGRAPHY?

A JUST BY THE POLAROID CAMERA.

Q SO YOU DID NOT UTILIZE A 35-MILLIMETER CAMERA, FOR INSTANCE, IS THAT CORRECT?

A CORRECT.

Q WITH REGARD TO THE POLAROID PICTURE, DO YOU HAVE THAT POLAROID THAT YOU TOOK?

A YES, I DO.

Q COULD YOU PLEASE — ACTUALLY YOU TOOK MORE THAN ONE POLAROID, DIDN’T YOU, SIR?

A I DID. I DID.

Q DO YOU HAVE THOSE ACCESSIBLE?

A I DO.

Q COULD YOU PLEASE SHOW US.

A I WILL BE REFERRING TO SEVERAL PAGES OF MY NOTES. PAGE 9.

MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, I’M GOING TO ASK TO HAVE MARKED THE ORIGINAL POLAROID PHOTOGRAPHS AS DEFENDANT’S — I’M SORRY — AS COURT’S NEXT IN ORDER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ONE IS 119.

THE CLERK: IT’S ACTUALLY 120.

THE COURT: ANOTHER ONE PRE-MARKED? ALL RIGHT. 120.

MR. FELDMAN: JUST PROCEDURAL, SHOULD I BRING THE PHOTOS TO THE CLERK, TAKE THE TAGS, WHAT?

THE COURT: IT DOESN’T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. FIRST THEY’VE GOT TO BE DISLODGED FROM THE —

MR. FELDMAN: YES.

THE COURT: — NOTES.
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q MR. SORIANO, COULD YOU PLEASE REMOVE FROM YOUR NOTES THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU TOOK OF THE JACKET WHEN YOU FIRST MADE YOUR OBSERVATIONS.

A FOR CLARIFICATION, WILL I BE GETTING THESE NOTES — THESE ARE MY ORIGINAL NOTES.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND I WOULD LOVE TO SAY YOU ARE GOING TO GET THEM BACK. BUT THE FACT IS THEY WILL BECOME COURT EXHIBITS, AND WHETHER YOU EVER SEE THEM AGAIN IS SUBJECT TO SOME DEBATE.

WE WILL MAKE COPIES FOR YOU TO PLACE IN THE FILE. WE WILL SHOW THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING OF YOUR DOING.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO REMOVE THEM AS COUNSEL HAS REQUESTED.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THESE ARE PAGES 9 AND 11 OF MY NOTES.

MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU, SIR.

THE COURT: IS IT NECESSARY TO MARK THE NOTES THEMSELVES?

MR. FELDMAN: NO. HE JUST HANDED ME, AND I AM GOING TO GIVE THEM RIGHT BACK TO HIM.

MR. CLARKE: ALSO I’M NOT CLEAR. ARE WE REMOVING ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS?

MR. FELDMAN: I’M ASKING —

THE COURT: THE ONES COUNSEL FEELS HE NEEDS TO INTRODUCE OR MARK.

MR. FELDMAN: YES. I AM ASKING FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHS TO BE MARKED.

SIR, I GUESS THERE WOULD BE A TOTAL OF FIVE PHOTOS. IS THAT RIGHT?

THE WITNESS: YES. THERE ARE A TOTAL OF FIVE PHOTOS.

MR. FELDMAN: HOWEVER YOU ARE MOST COMFORTABLE REMOVING THEM. WE HAVE COLOR XEROXES. HOWEVER YOU WANT TO REMOVE THEM. REMOVE THEM IN THE SAFEST WAY YOU ARE MOST COMFORTABLE WITH.

THEN, YOUR HONOR, COULD THEY BE MARKED I GUESS IT’S 120 OR 121 A THROUGH —

THE COURT: WHATEVER. USE AN ENVELOPE, PEG.

MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.

(ENVELOPE AND CONTENTS [FIVE PHOTOGRAPHS] MARKED TRIAL

EXHIBIT NUMBER 120 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q SIR, WOULD IT HELP YOU TO HAVE A SCISSORS?

A IT WOULD. THANK YOU.

WOULD YOU LIKE THEM INDIVIDUALLY?

Q IF YOU CAN DO THAT IN A WAY THAT PRESERVES THE PHOTOS, YES, PLEASE.

A FIVE PHOTOS.

Q THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, THERE’S NOW AN ENVELOPE THAT’S MARKED 120, AND THERE ARE FIVE PHOTOS, 120 A, B, C, D, AND E.
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q SIR, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU WHAT’S BEEN MARKED 120-A AND ASK YOU IS THIS A — IS THIS ONE OF THE POLAROID PHOTOS THAT YOU TOOK OF THE JACKET?

A YES.

Q AND WE SEE — I KNOW THE JURY’S HAVING TROUBLE, IS GOING TO HAVE TROUBLE, BUT WE SEE THAT IT’S NOT A CONSISTENT COLOR. CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THAT IS.

A IT COULD BE THE INTERFERENCE OF THE PLASTIC COVER COVERING THE — OR GIVING YOU A CLEAR COLOR OF IT.

Q OKAY.

SO WE KNOW, THEN, THAT 120-A WOULD THEN LOGICALLY BE THE FIRST PHOTOGRAPH YOU TOOK OF THE JACKET.

A YES.

Q AND WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE SEE OR AT LEAST IT’S DEPICTED OR APPARENTLY DEPICTED THAT THERE’S THE PLASTIC THAT COMES FROM THE DRYCLEANER’S, RIGHT?

A CORRECT.

Q I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT’S BEEN MARKED 120-B. THAT APPEARS TO BE A POLAROID OF THE JACKET, IS THAT CORRECT?

A CORRECT.

MR. FELDMAN: I WOULD ASK TO HAVE MARKED AS DEFENSE’ NEXT IN ORDER AN EIGHT-BY-ELEVEN —

THE COURT: COURT EXHIBIT 121.

MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.

(XEROX COPY OF A PHOTOGRAPH MARKED TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 121 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU WHAT’S BEEN MARKED 121 AND ASK YOU EXCEPT FOR THE COLOR VARIATIONS IN HYPOTHETICALLY SCANNERS, DOES 121 APPEAR TO BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE COPY OF
120-B.

A IT WOULD BE A COPY OF THE JACKET, THE COLOR OF THE JACKET.

Q SO INDEPENDENT OF THE COLOR, — SO 121 SHOWS US WHAT THE JACKET LOOKS LIKE IN AN ENLARGEMENT KIND OF OF YOUR POLAROID, ISN’T THAT TRUE?

A IT WOULD BE A REPRESENTATION, YES.

Q NOW, SIR, YOU TOLD US, IF YOU COULD APPROACH 121 AND JUST DRAW IN CIRCLES WHEREVER YOU’RE COMFORTABLE WHERE IT WAS YOU SAW THE STAINS THAT MR. CLARKE HAD YOU SHOW THE JURY THAT WERE REMOVED FROM THE JACKET. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I’M ASKING YOU?

A YES, I DO.

Q PLEASE. ANY COLOR YOU WANT. ANYTHING YOU’RE COMFORTABLE WITH. ANYTHING YOU NEED. WE HAVE LOTS OF PENS OR WHATEVER.

A AGAIN THIS IS AN APPROXIMATION OF WHERE I FOUND THE STAINS. THE FIRST STAIN WHICH WAS LABELED AS 94D-1, I’M GOING TO SHOW AN ARROW WHERE I FOUND IT, BUT WHAT YOU CAN SEE HERE IT’S COVERED. I WILL SHOW AN ARROW APPROXIMATELY THE LOCATION OF WHERE I FOUND 94D-1.

Q AND IF YOU COULD WRITE 94D-1, PLEASE.

A YES.

(THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)

THE SECOND STAIN, 94D-2, AGAIN THIS IS AN APPROXIMATION ON THIS PHOTO, WHICH WOULD BE RIGHT AROUND THIS AREA. I WILL MAKE A CIRCLE OF THE APPROXIMATE AREA AND LABEL IT AS 94D-2. AND IF I MAY REFER TO MY NOTES, . . .

Q PLEASE.

A AGAIN REFERRING TO PAGE 10 OF MY NOTES, THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION FOR ITEM 94D-3 IS AROUND THIS AREA.

Q WASN’T THERE A 94D-4?

A YES.

Q WHERE IS THAT, SIR?

A AGAIN I’LL REFER TO MY NOTES ON PAGE 10. AGAIN THIS IS AN APPROXIMATE LOCATION ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SHOULDER. I’M GOING TO CIRCLE THE AREA. AND THAT WOULD BE 94D-4.

Q NOW, CAN YOU TELL ME SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO 94-1, WHAT WAS THE PRECISE SHAPE, SIZE AND SHAPE, OF THAT PARTICULAR STAIN BEFORE IT WAS REMOVED?

A THE APPROXIMATE —

Q NO. I’M SORRY. YOU SAID APPROXIMATE. I’M ASKING FOR PRECISE.

MR. CLARKE: WELL, OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

LAY A FOUNDATION.

MR. FELDMAN: OKAY.
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q SIR, DID YOU MEASURE THE STAINS?

A YES, I DID.

Q ID YOU MEASURE THE STAINS USING I DON’T KNOW, A CENTIMETER RULER OR IF SUCH EXISTS A MILLIMETER RULER?

A YES, I DID.

Q AND DID YOU ARTICULATE IN ANY OF YOUR NOTES THE PRECISE SIZE, NOT THE APPROXIMATE SIZE, BUT THE PRECISE SIZE, OF EACH AND EVERY STAIN?

A I COULD ONLY GIVE YOU THE APPROXIMATE SIZE BECAUSE I DID NOT WANT THE RULER TO CONTACT THE STAIN. SO VISUALLY BY PLACING THE RULER CLOSE TO THE STAIN I MADE AN APPROXIMATION.

Q ALL RIGHT.

SO WHAT DO WE GET AS APPROXIMATIONS FOR THE SIZE OF THE STAIN?

A FOR EACH OF THE STAINS?

Q PLEASE.

A FOR 94D-1 THE APPROXIMATE SIZE WAS FOUR MILLIMETERS LONG.

Q I’M SORRY. FOR THOSE OF US THAT ARE I’LL SAY CHALLENGED METRICALLY, CAN YOU DO SOME CONVERSIONS FIRST WITH REGARD TO A MILLIMETER? HOW MANY MILLIMETERS FOR AN INCH?

A I DON’T KNOW THE EXACT SIZE, BUT I CAN GIVE YOU FOR THIS PARTICULAR SIZE WHICH WAS 94D-1, THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY FOUR MILLIMETERS. THAT WAS A LITTLE UNDER 3/16 OF AN INCH.

Q OKAY.

HOW BIG IS MY PEN TIP? I MEAN CAN YOU CONVERT MY PEN TIP OR PENCIL TIPS, I’M LOOKING FOR AN ANALOGY FOR SIZE TO A MILLIMETER.

A I WOULD SAY IT’S ABOUT A MILLIMETER OR MAYBE LESS.

Q SO THE PEN TIP WOULD BE ABOUT A MILLIMETER?

A APPROXIMATELY.

Q SO YOU JUST TOLD US I THINK THREE OR FOUR MILLIMETERS, APPROXIMATELY.

A I SAID APPROXIMATELY FOUR MILLIMETERS LONG.

Q SO ABOUT FOUR PEN TIPS IN LENGTH?

A APPROXIMATELY.

Q IN YOUR TRAINING ISN’T IT THE CASE THAT 35-MILLIMETER CAMERAS ARE UTILIZED SO THAT LATER INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO REVIEW YOUR CONCLUSIONS CAN, DEPENDING ON SCALE AND SIZE, USE BETTER PHOTOGRAPHY THAN USING A COMPUTER AND A SCANNER TO BLOW UP A POLAROID?

MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

THE WITNESS: IN MY —

THE COURT: SIR, YOU NEED NOT ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: SORRY.
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q IN YOUR LABORATORY DO YOU HAVE A 35-MILLIMETER CAMERA?

MR. CLARKE: SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: THAT CAN BE ANSWERED YES OR NO.

THE WITNESS: YES.
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q IN YOUR LABORATORY DO YOU HAVE A 35-MILLIMETER CAMERA AND RULERS?

A YES.

Q IN YOUR TRAINING IS IT THE CASE THAT IF ONE TAKES A PHOTOGRAPH DIRECTLY DOWN UPON A PARTICULAR ITEM THAT THAT WOULD PERMIT A MORE ACCURATE AND PRECISE WAY IN WHICH TO IDENTIFY THE SHAPE, FOR INSTANCE, OF A STAIN?

MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

IT WASN’T DONE IN THIS CASE, COUNSEL. MOVE ON.
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q WELL, CAN YOU TELL ME HOW THESE STAINS GOT HERE?

A NO, I CANNOT.

Q CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER — DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SPATTER AND SPLATTER?

MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT. ALSO NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED ON BOTH GROUNDS.

MR. FELDMAN: SO NO FOUNDATION, YOUR HONOR, OR RELEVANCE?

THE COURT: BOTH.

MR. FELDMAN: ALL RIGHT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q WITH REGARD TO 94-2, HOW BIG WAS THAT STAIN, SIR?

A THE ITEM 94D-2?

Q D DASH TWO.

A THAT’S APPROXIMATELY THREE CENTIMETERS LONG, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY IN INCHES APPROXIMATELY OVER ONE INCH AND THREE-SIXTEENTHS OF AN INCH. OVER ONE AND THREE-SIXTEENTHS OF AN INCH, APPROXIMATELY.

Q YOU TOLD ME THAT YOU DIDN’T WANT TO I GUESS OVERLAY YOUR — THE STAINS WITH A RULER. I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO 120-E. THAT’S A POLAROID, ISN’T IT?

A CORRECT.

Q ON THE POLAROID IS A RULER, ISN’T THERE?

A CORRECT.

Q IS THE RULER TOUCHING THE MATERIAL OR OFF THE MATERIAL?

A IT’S ON THE MATERIAL. BUT IT IS NOT TOUCHING THE STAIN.

Q ALL RIGHT.

SO WHAT YOU JUST TOLD ME, THEN, IS YOU COULD HAVE PUT A RULER ON THE JACKET AWAY FROM THE STAIN. CORRECT?

MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

YOU CAN ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?

MR. FELDMAN: YEAH.
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q WHAT YOU’RE INDICATING IS YOU COULD HAVE PUT A RULER ON ANY OF THE STAINS THAT ARE DEPICTED IN 121 TO GET PRECISE MEASUREMENTS, CORRECT?

A APPROXIMATE MEASUREMENTS.

Q AND YOU DID IN FACT PUT A RULER NEAR THE STAIN AS DEPICTED IN 120-E, CORRECT?

A CORRECT.

Q I THINK YOU GOT OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS THERE.

SIMILARLY WITH REGARD TO 120-D, 120-D DEPICTS A STAIN THAT YOU’VE LABELED AS 94D-1, IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A YES. CORRECT.

Q AND THERE’S A RULER IN IT, ISN’T THERE?

A YES.

Q WAS THIS PHOTOGRAPH 120-D TAKEN BEFORE OR AFTER YOU HAD REMOVED THE MATERIAL FROM THE JACKET?

A AGAIN, THERE WERE, WHEN I DID MY TESTING, I DID A SMALL CUTTING OF IT, OF THE STAIN. AND THAT WAS DONE AFTER THE TESTING.

Q OKAY.

SO 120-D IS A PHOTOGRAPH THAT WAS TAKEN AFTER THE TESTING, IS THAT RIGHT?

A YES. FOR ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS. FOR ALL PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN OF THESE STAINS, THEY WERE TAKEN AFTER THE TESTING.

Q ALL RIGHT.

BUT BEFORE OR AFTER THE MATERIAL WAS CUT, IF YOU RECALL?

A TO TEST THE STAIN I DID A — I CUT A SMALL PORTION OF IT. SO I DID CUT INTO THE STAIN PRIOR TO TAKING ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF IT.

Q SO ALL OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE POST CUT. I’M SORRY. WHEN I SAY ALL, I BETTER BE MORE SPECIFIC.

120-E, 120-D, 120-C ARE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE TAKEN POST CUT.

A THEY WERE TAKEN AFTER THE TESTING WAS DONE, WHICH WAS A CUTTING OF IT. THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN, AND THEN THE STAINS WERE CUT OUT FOR ADDITIONAL TESTING.

Q ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: IT’S TIME FOR THE MORNING BREAK.

PLEASE REMEMBER THE ADMONITION OF THE COURT NOT TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY AMONG YOURSELVES OR WITH ANY OTHER PERSONS, NOR FORMULATE OR EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS ON THE MATTER UNTIL IT IS SUBMITTED TO YOU FOR DECISION.